Hi all,
I encountered this strange error in pugs (in 6.2.11,6.2.12 and the latest
svn)
My first program (lambda1.p6) calculates the factorial of 5 using -> as
lambda functions:
say (-> $n { -> $f { $f($n,$f) }.( -> $n, $f { $n<2 ?? 1 !! $n*$f($n-1,$f)
}) }).(5);
say "OK";
say "OK";
$ pugs lamb
在 Oct 3, 2006 10:22 PM 時，Wim Vanderbauwhede 寫到：
say (-> $n { -> $f { $f($n,$f) }.( -> $n, $f { $n<2 ?? 1 !! $n*$f
($n-1,$f)
}) }).(5);
say "OK";
#say (-> $n { -> $f { $f($n,$f) }.( -> $n, $f { $n<2 ?? 1 !! $n*$f
($n-1,$f)
}) }).(5);
say "OK";
It's extremely subtle -- $n<2 should never have
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2006 12:32, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Before we start talking about how such a thing might be implemented,
I'd like to see a solid argument in favor of implementing it at all.
What benefit can be derived by letting a module specify additional
strictures for its
Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2006, jerry gay writes:
On 9/1/06, Trey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Paul Seamons writes:
> I'm not sure if I have seen this requested or discussed.
This was definitively rejected by Larry in 2002:
p
> Of course, that wasn't exactly what you were asking, but it does present
> a practical solution when you want to:
>
> {say $_ for =<>}.() if $do_read_input;
>
> Which I just verified works fine under current pugs.
Thank you.
Hadn't thought of that. I think that is workable.
But it also
# New Ticket Created by Chris Dolan
# Please include the string: [perl #40449]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=40449 >
This patch makes the following simple improvements to the example
HTTP server that ship
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 08:46, Chris Dolan wrote:
> This patch makes the following simple improvements to the example
> HTTP server that ships with Parrot:
>
> * Bugfix for 404 responses
> * Disallow urls containing ".."
> * Un-hardcode the server host name
> * Move the server name ("Pa
Paul Seamons wrote:
Of course, that wasn't exactly what you were asking, but it does present
a practical solution when you want to:
{say $_ for =<>}.() if $do_read_input;
Which I just verified works fine under current pugs.
Thank you.
Hadn't thought of that. I think that is workable
Author: chip
Date: Tue Oct 3 12:36:36 2006
New Revision: 14840
Removed:
trunk/docs/pdds/clip/pdd07_codingstd.pod
Changes in other areas also in this revision:
Modified:
trunk/ (props changed)
Log:
Remove redundant pdd07 (closes: #40419)
I'm finally getting around to sending this patch as requested on IRC...
dang commit bits are rare around here ;)
This contains the Makefile, README, .pg grammar, a -harness.pir that
executes the parser on a sample string and dumps the parse tree and a
-stress.pir that runs 50,000 trial runs to
Aaron Sherman writes:
> +Written in 2006 by Aaron Sherman, and distrbuted
Typo: distributed
On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Chris Dolan wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:29 AM, Paul Cochrane wrote:
Hi all,
In the process of trying to finish off the perl coda cage task, I
notice that the Perl::Critic policy for the emacs/vim coda skips
__END__ and __DATA__ sections at the end of perl files, h
> It relates to some old problems in the early part of the RFC/Apocalypse
> process, and the fact that:
>
> say $_ for 1..10 for 1..10
>
> Was ambiguous. The bottom line was that you needed to define your
> parameter name for that to work, and defining a parameter name on a
> modifier means t
Paul Seamons wrote:
It relates to some old problems in the early part of the RFC/Apocalypse
process, and the fact that:
say $_ for 1..10 for 1..10
Was ambiguous. The bottom line was that you needed to define your
parameter name for that to work, and defining a parameter name on a
modifi
Aaron Sherman skribis 2006-10-03 13:46 (-0400):
> In Perl 6, that's simplified to:
> {{say 1 if 1}.() if 1}.() if 1;
Which can also be written as:
do { do { say 1 if 1 } if 1 } if 1;
Which if crammed together the way you wrote it, turns into:
do {do {say 1 if 1} if 1} if 1;
Or perhap
Juerd wrote:
Which can also be written as:
do { do { say 1 if 1 } if 1 } if 1;
Sorry, no it can't. From S4
(http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S04.html#The_repeat_statement):
"Unlike in Perl 5, applying a statement modifier to a do block is
specifically disallowed
Which if
[Apologies for the last post. Gmail got a little eager.
Here's what I meant to send...]
Juerd wrote:
Which can also be written as:
do { do { say 1 if 1 } if 1 } if 1;
Sorry, no it can't. From S4
(http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S04.html#The_repeat_statement):
"Unlike in Pe
在 Oct 4, 2006 7:46 AM 時，Damian Conway 寫到：
[Apologies for the last post. Gmail got a little eager.
Here's what I meant to send...]
Juerd wrote:
Which can also be written as:
do { do { say 1 if 1 } if 1 } if 1;
Sorry, no it can't. From S4
(http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/
S04
Audrey asked:
> However, I wonder if this is too strict. Disallowing "while" and
> "until" after a do block is fine (and can be coded directly in those
> two statement modifier macros), but is there a reason to disallow
> other modifiers?
Well, for a start, there's this syntactic problem:
do
在 Oct 4, 2006 10:17 AM 時，Damian Conway 寫到：
Audrey asked:
However, I wonder if this is too strict. Disallowing "while" and
"until" after a do block is fine (and can be coded directly in those
two statement modifier macros), but is there a reason to disallow
other modifiers?
Well, for a start
The use case here is
do { .foo for @bar } if $baz;
But I guess you can always "protect" it with a parens:
(do { .foo for @bar }) if $baz;
Or just:
if $baz { .foo for @bar }
or even:
@bar».foo if $baz;
;-)
Damian
21 matches
Mail list logo
